Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-24

ton should be conferred upon the Pre-
sident There had been no question in
the Senate as 10 the advisability Of
giving this power, but the bill asit
came from the Senate was open TO cer-
tain objections II provided in one
section that the President should issue
his proclamation in case he was salts
fed our vessels were denied the rights
granted to the most favored nations
We had no treaty with Great Bri-
tain containing any favored-nation
ause. nor did we intend 10 put
ourselves on the same footing as
any other nation since. under the treaty
of peace, we had certain rights in the
deep-seo fisheries which no other nation,
except Great Britain herself, possessed.
II was but fair to the Executive, when
Congress placed upon him very great
responsibility, that it should be con-
ferred in distinct terms. This he did
not think the Senate bill did, and he
therefore favored the adoption Of the
substitute.
In the debate which followed the
Maine and Massachusetts, members ia
vored the Senate bill as being all New
ENGLAND fishermen desired. Members
from other sections, however, called at
tention TO the fact that it was not the
fishermen alone who were interested (;
that the questioninvolved was national,
and must be settled upon a broader
basis than that of the interest of one
section or one industry.
Mr. Clements, Of Georgia, said the
trouble with Canada had originated in
what had been called a mere skirmish
about fish, but it had assumed larger
proportions than a skirmish. The
8merican flag had been hauled down
and $50 American vessels had been
searched or warned of, and the honor
Of the Government was involved. He
contended that a remedy was better
provided in the substitute than in the
Senate bill, and he criticised the latter
measure for claiming only the same
rights for our fishermen that were ac-
corded to the subjects of the most
favored nations The substitute
was better framed in this re-
spect. Another difference between
the two measures was that the House
bill authorized the President to stop
the coming of locomotives and cars
into the United States. Gentlemen
from the North and West should not
complain Of this provision. This was
not a local question. 1t was not New
England question. He hoped that the
President would not be required to ex-
ercise any part of the power conferred
upon him, but when it was proposed to
deal with the question on basis of
non-intercOurse the Government ought
not to stop with mere prohibition OF
the incoming of Canadian fish.
Mr. Daniel, of Virginia, said that the
treatment of American fishermen blythe
authorities of the provincial Govern
mcnt had been such as to demand
the attention of Congress. Every man,
however hard and callous, who read the
description of that treatment would be
satisfied that the time had come when
the subject should have serious consid-
eration. He had heard none Of that
cascOnade about war which the gentle
man from Massachusetts (Mr. Rice re-
fcrred to. He hoped that there might
be no war, but he believed that the way
to prevent war was for every Govern
ment whose dignity was insulted, or
whose rights were infringed, TO meet
the question on the threshold with be-
coming dignity and with the gravity
which would project it before the eyes
of all nations. He argued that this was
better accomplished by the substitute,
and criticised the favored-nation clause
of the Senate bill as shifting the matter
Of controversy and going out of the
way to throw a cloud upon the Gov
ernment's proceeding He strongly
supported the railway clause of the
substitute as rendering more effective
the policy of non-intercOurse.
At the conclusion of the debate the
House passed, with but one dissenting
vote, the fisheries retaliation bill,
amended by the adoption of the sub
stitute reported from the House Com
mittee on Foreign Affairs.
The vote on substituting the House
bill for the Senate bill was l3S to q,
and the vote passing the bill as thus
nmended was 252 yeas to ! nay (Mr.
Doueherty, Of Florida).
The conference report on the bill
making a close season for mackerel
WAS agreed to.
The House then went into Commit
tee Of the Whole on Senate amend
mcnts TO the post-oilice appropriation
bill. The debate was upon the Senate
half-nilion-dollar fOreign-mail subsidy
amendment.
Mr.. Martin, of Alabama, favored the
amendment as giving an impetus to
American trade, and incidentally de-
clarod his belief that American ships
should lie built upon American soil.
Mr.. Tillman, OF South Carolina.
would vote for the amendment, not
withstanding that it was denounced as
subsidy. He proceeded to point out
the necessity of commercial relations
with South and Central America.
Mr.. Oates, Of Alabama, rose to ask a
question, but Mr.. Tillman refused to
Weld, reminding the gentleman, how
ever. that there was iron i'll his State
which would one day want market.
The West wanted a great market. The
Central and South American States
were that great market. They were
cur India they were the countries that
were TO make America wealthy-rich,
prosperous, and fourishing-if the
United States would only do something
10 utilize and grasp them. If the pend
ing proposition was a subsidy, then
eyery star route in the gentleman
State was subsidized, for none OF them
were self-sustaining.
MessYs. Hammond, of Georgia, and
mills, of Texas, denounced the amend
ment as subsidy, and ridicnled the
idea that it would be a practical benefit
in the building up of trade with South
America.
Mr. Blount, of Georgia, closed the
debate. and turned his attention II
those Democrats who had announced
their intention of voting for the amend
ment, exhorting them to fall into line
with the living Democracy Of the pres
ent. which was unalterably opposed t
| subsidies. Ii was absurd, besides, t
talk about restoring American SHIPPING
by granting subsidies to steamship
lines.